EPPING FOREST DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN EXAMINATION … › wp-content › uploads › 2019 › 06 › ... · is located within the settings of Grade II Listed Dyers and Grade II* Marden

HW27 EFDLP – Heritage considerations for ONG.R6 and CHIG.R7 June 2019

EPPING FOREST DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN

EXAMINATION HEARINGS

HOMEWORK NOTE 27

MATTER 15: PLACES AND SITES (POLICIES P 1 – P 15) POLICY P 4 ONGAR AND POLICY P 7 CHIGWELL

ISSUE 2: ARE THE PLAN’S POLICIES FOR THE SPECIFIC PLACES AND SITES WITHIN THE DISTRICT JUSTIFIED, EFFECTIVE AND CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY; AND ARE THE SPECIFIC SITE ALLOCATIONS THEY INCLUDE JUSTIFIED AND DELIVERABLE?

HW 27: HERITAGE CONSIDERATIONS FOR SITES ONG.R6 AND CHIG.R7

1. The Council provides this note which concerns Matter 12, Issue 2 and the Inspector’s

request that the Council provides an explanation of the work that informed the site

capacity assessment and how heritage considerations specifically were taken into

account.

ONG.R6

2. As set out in the Council’s Matter 15 Hearing Statement, ONG.R6 was assessed

through the site selection process. As part of Stage 2/6.2 (Quantitative and Qualitative

Assessment), sites were assessed against criterion 1.8a ‘Impact on Scheduled

Ancient Monument/Listed Building/Conservation Area/Historic Park of Garden’.


3. The assessment1 undertaken for site ONG.R6 concluded the proposed development

is located within the settings of Grade II Listed Dyers and Grade II* Marden Ash House

but mitigation through sensitive layout and high quality design/materials could be

achieved. The assessment was undertaken by the Council’s Conservation Officer.

4. A map is appended to this note showing the location of relevant heritage assets within

the vicinity of site allocation ONG.R6 – see Appendix A.

5. At Stage 3/6.3 of the site selection process a capacity assessment was undertaken for

all candidate preferred sites to estimate an indicative number of homes to be delivered

on the site. In undertaking this assessment, regard was had to any constraints which

may reduce or affect the capacity of the site including the consideration of listed

buildings, conservation areas and other heritage assets, as well as the local setting

and character2.

6. With respect to the assessment of ONG.R6 specifically, the capacity assessment took

account of the proximity of the site to listed buildings and a constraint density

adjustment reduction of 30% was applied to account for the potential for harm to the

asset and its surroundings in line with the findings of the qualitative assessment

provided by the Conservation Officer at Stage 2. A further adjustment was made to

the density reducing it by a further 20% to minimise impact on the amenity and

character of the surrounding detached dwellings set in larger grounds.

7. The indicative net density for ONG.R6 was therefore reduced to 25 dph, with an

approximate net capacity of 33 dwellings which has properly accounted for the

requirement to mitigate any effects on the settings of listed buildings nearby. This is

detailed on page B1853 of EB805N.

8. The site specific requirements for this site allocation in Appendix 6 under the heading

‘Heritage’ require that development proposals which may affect the settings of these

1 See the Stage 2 Quantitative and Qualitative assessment for site SR-0391 on page B533 of

EB805Fiii http://www.efdclocalplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/EB805Fiii-Appendix-B1.4.2-Results-of-Stage-2-and-Stage-6.2-Assessment-Part-3.pdf

2 A detailed methodology for the capacity assessment provided at Appendix B1.4.1 to the Site Selection Report. http://www.efdclocalplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/EB805E-Appendix-B1.4.1-Detailed-Methodology-for-Stages-2-and-6.2-Assessment.pdf

http://www.efdclocalplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/EB805Fiii-Appendix-B1.4.2-Results-of-Stage-2-and-Stage-6.2-Assessment-Part-3.pdf


http://www.efdclocalplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/EB805E-Appendix-B1.4.1-Detailed-Methodology-for-Stages-2-and-6.2-Assessment.pdf



identified heritage assets should conserve or enhance their significance including the

contribution made by their settings in accordance with LPSV Policy DM 7 Heritage

Assets.

9. As stated in the Council’s Matter 15 Hearing Statement, the promotors of the site have

produced a Heritage Impact Assessment which seeks to confirm the Council’s

assessment that any impacts on Grade II Listed the Dyers and Grade II* Marden Ash

House can be appropriately mitigated. This heritage assessment is appended to this

note as Appendix B.

CHIG.R7

10. As set out in the Council’s Matter 15 Hearing Statement, CHIG.R7 was assessed

through the site selection process. As part of Stage 2/6.2 (Quantitative and Qualitative

Assessment), sites were assessed against criterion 1.8a ‘Impact on Scheduled

Ancient Monument/Listed Building/Conservation Area/Historic Park of Garden”. The

assessment3 undertaken for site CHIG.R7 concluded that there was potential for

development of this site to directly affect heritage assets as the site contains Grade II

listed structures (and the site is within the settings of other heritage assets in the

vicinity), but that any affects could be mitigated. The qualitative assessment set out

that any proposed development must respect the settings of the listed buildings and

that development in front of the listed buildings / structures should be avoided as it

could be detrimental (see page B533 of EB805Fiii). This assessment was undertaken

by the Council’s Conservation Officer.

11. A map is appended to this note showing the location of relevant heritage assets within

the vicinity of site allocation CHIG.R7 – see Appendix C.

12. At Stage 3/6.3 of the site selection process a capacity assessment was undertaken for

all candidate preferred sites to estimate an indicative number of homes to be delivered

on the site. In undertaking this assessment, regard was had to any constraints which

may reduce or affect the capacity of the site including the consideration of listed

3 See the Stage 2 Quantitative and Qualitative assessment for site SR-0391 on page B533 of

EB805Fiii http://www.efdclocalplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/EB805Fiii-Appendix-B1.4.2-Results-of-Stage-2-and-Stage-6.2-Assessment-Part-3.pdf




buildings, conservation areas and other heritage assets, as well as local setting and

character4.

13. The Stage 3/6.3 Capacity Assessment had regard to the Grade II listed buildings and

structures within and near to the site and concluded that a reduction in density was

required to avoid direct impact and to mitigate any impact on the setting of the Listed

Buildings. A constraints density adjustment amounting to a 50% reduction was

therefore applied to account for the specific commentary included in the Stage 2

Qualitative assessment around layout and views by avoiding built development in front

of the listed buildings and structures. This resulted in the indicative net density for

CHIG.R7 to be reduced to 19.5 dph, with an approximate net capacity of 28 dwellings

for the site. This is detailed on page B853 of EB805N.

14. The site specific requirements for this allocation in Appendix 6 under the heading

‘Heritage’ require that development proposals which may affect the settings of these

identified heritage assets (namely the Grade II listed Chigwell Manor House and the

forecourt piers, gateway and railings) should conserve or enhance their significance

and the contribution made by their settings specifically through appropriate layout,

avoiding the siting of development immediately in front of the heritage assets and

focussing development along the sides of the site. This is in accordance with guidance

provided by the Conservation Officer in the qualitative assessment of the site.

15. The Council has therefore given very careful consideration to heritage assets at

various stages of the site selection process. Where necessary this is reflected in the

site-specific requirements in Appendix 6 to the LPSV. The Council consider that the

proposed site allocations of CHIG.R6 and ONG.R7 is justified and is satisfied the

quantum of development being proposed on sites ONG.R6 and CHIG.R7 can be

achieved through sensitive design.

4 A detailed methodology for the capacity assessment provided at Appendix B1.4.1 to the Site

Selection Report. http://www.efdclocalplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/EB805E-Appendix-B1.4.1-Detailed-Methodology-for-Stages-2-and-6.2-Assessment.pdf




Appendix A

Name: Planning Policy

Scale: 1: 3,000 @A4

Contains Ordnance Survey & Royal Mail Data© Crown Copyright & Database Right 2016EFDC Licence No: 100018534 2016© Royal Mail Copyright & Database Right 2016© Environment Agency, © CopyrightGeo Perspectives, © Natural England 2016Reproduced with the permission of Natural England

Date: 10/06/2019LegendProject: HW 27 - Heritage

ContentONG.R6

The StagPublic House

St James'Lodge

Coopers

Knowleton Hall,Stondon Road

Oak Hall,Stondon Road

ONG.R7

ONG.R8

ONG.R6

GREY END

COTTAGE ON W CORNEROF CLOVERLY ROAD AND

NEXT TO GREY END

THE COTTAGE

DYERS

MARDENASH HOUSE

NEWHOUSEFARMHOUSE

Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GISUser Community

Residential Allocation

Epping Forest District Green Belt

Epping Forest District Boundary

Locally Listed Buildings

Grade II Listed Buildings

Grade II* Listed Buildings

Grade I Listed Buildings

Listed Buildings


Appendix B

HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Land East of Stanford Rivers Road, Ongar, Essex

Prepared by Strutt & Parker on behalf of Stonebond Properties Ltd

April 2019

Heritage Impact Assessment: Land east of Stanford Rivers Road, Ongar, Essex

Site Name: Land East of Stanford Rivers Road, Ongar, Essex

Client Name: Stonebond Properties Ltd

Type of Report: Heritage Impact Assessment

Prepared by: Paul Sutton (BTP MRTPI Dip Urban Design IHBC)

Checked by: Jack Lilliott (for Stonebond Properties Ltd)

Date: April 2019

COPYRIGHT © STRUTT & PARKER. This publication is the sole property of Strutt & Parker and must not be copied, reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, either in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of Strutt & Parker. Strutt & Parker does not accept any liability in negligence or otherwise for any loss or damage suffered by any party resulting from reliance on this publication.

Strutt & Parker, 66 – 68 Hills Road, Cambridge, Cambs. CB2 1LA [email protected]

Tel No: 01223 789391

mailto:[email protected]


CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 4

2. SITE CONTEXT AND HERITAGE ASSETS ..................................................................... 11

3. ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................................................................. 24

4 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT ............................................................................................. 29

5 MITIGATION ..................................................................................................................... 33

6 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................... 34

Appendix A - HER Records within 500m of appeal site…….................................................36

Version Description Originated Authorised/comments Date

Draft For comment PAS SH 25/04/2019

Final For submission PAS JL 29/04/2019


4

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This assessment has been prepared by Strutt & Parker on behalf of Stonebond Properties

Ltd to support the draft Local Plan allocation for the erection of around 33 dwellings on

land east of Stanford Rivers Road in Ongar, Essex. This report comprises the ‘Heritage

Impact Assessment’ and it should be read in conjunction with any accompanying

documents and the indicative layout plan.

1.2 The purpose of this assessment is to examine the likely impact of the proposals on

designated and non-designated heritage assets, as well as any impact on their setting.

The assessment highlights the significance of the heritage assets within the wider area

surrounding the application site, and describes the contribution made by their setting. The

impact of the proposals on these heritage assets and their setting is then evaluated and

finally, the proposed mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the design and

layout of the proposed development are explained, in terms of how they will ensure that

any harm to the significance of the identified heritage assets will be minimised.

1.3 The assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Section 16

of the National Planning Policy Framework July 2018 (‘Conserving and Enhancing the

Historic Environment’), which states1 that:

“In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to

describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made

by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and

no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their

significance.”

1.4 This statement is structured as follows:

Section 1 – Introduction: explains the purpose of the assessment, sets out the

definitions of various heritage terms used in the assessment, and explains the

national policy context;

Section 2 – Site Context: which describes the location and local context of the

application site and examines its history and evolution. It also identifies those

heritage assets and their settings which might be affected by the proposed

development;

Section 3 – Assessment of Significance: considers the significance of the heritage

assets that might be affected by the proposed development;

Section 4 – Assessment of Impact – this section considers the potential impact of

the proposed development on the identified heritage assets and their settings;

1 NPPF paragraph 189


5

Section 5 – Mitigation: this section considers the mitigation measures that are

proposed which will help to offset any impact of the proposals on the significance of

the identified heritage assets;

Section 6 – Conclusions: provides a summary of the overall conclusions drawn from

the previous sections of the report.

Definitions

1.5 This section of the assessment introduces and defines the terminology used within this

report. The assessment uses a range of technical terms that first need to be explained

and distinguished from one another.

Heritage Assets

1.6 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) notes that heritage assets range from

sites and buildings of local historic value to those of the highest significance, such as

World Heritage Sites which are internationally recognised to be of Outstanding Universal

Value. Paragraph 184 of the NPPF also notes that:

“These assets are an irreplaceable resource, and should be conserved in a manner

appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the

quality of life of existing and future generations”

1.7 A heritage asset is defined within the NPPF (Annex 2 Glossary) as:

“a building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of

significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest.

Heritage assets include designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local

planning authority (including local listing).”

Heritage assets therefore comprise:

Designated heritage assets – World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Listed

Buildings, Conservation Areas, Registered Historic Parks and Gardens, Registered

Battlefields, or Protected (Marine) Wreck Sites; and,

Non-designated heritage assets – buildings, monuments, sites, places, areas or

landscapes that have been identified by local planning authorities as having a

degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions but which are

not formally designated heritage assets - e.g. locally listed buildings, buildings of

local interest, etc.

Significance

1.8 The term ‘significance’ in the context of heritage policy is defined in the NPPF Glossary

as:


6

“The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations, because of its heritage

interest. This interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance

derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting. For

World Heritage Sites, the cultural value described within each site’s Statement of

Outstanding Universal Value forms part of its significance”.

1.9 The categories of significance can range from “exceptional”, “considerable”, to “some” and

“negative or negligible”. An assessment of significance has informed this impact

assessment. The types of impact can range from “positive”, to “neutral”, or “negative”.

Where a ‘negative’ impact is identified, the degree of harm to identified heritage assets

should be clarified as being either: ‘total loss of a heritage asset’, ‘substantial harm’, or

‘limited harm’ (less than substantial harm), in accordance with the NPPF (see below).

Paragraph 189 of the NPPF states that:

“In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to

describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made

by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and

no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their

significance…”

1.10 Therefore, in accordance with the NPPF, this statement provides an assessment of

significance, in order to understand the potential impact of the proposed development.

Setting

1.11 Setting is an integral element of the significance of a heritage asset and the impact of

development proposals on the ‘setting’ of heritage assets must be considered. ‘Setting’ is

defined in the glossary to the NPPF as:

“The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may

change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a

positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to

appreciate that significance, or may be neutral.”

1.12 Setting comprises all the surrounding context (e.g. land, landscape, skyline, structures

and important views), which is experienced from within and alongside a heritage asset.

Setting does not necessarily have a fixed spatial boundary. It includes a heritage asset’s

‘immediate’ setting as well as its ‘extended’ setting.

1.13 Visual elements of setting are important but the setting is also affected by other

environmental factors such as noise, dust and vibration. Extensive heritage assets, such

as landscapes and townscapes, can include many heritage assets and their nested and

overlapping settings, as well as having a setting of their own. A conservation area will

include the settings of listed buildings and have its own setting, as will the village or urban

area in which it is situated.


7

1.14 The setting of a heritage asset may reflect the character of the wider townscape or

landscape in which it is situated, or be quite distinct from it, whether fortuitously or by

design (e.g. a quiet garden around a historic almshouse located within the bustle of the

urban street-scene).

1.15 ‘Setting’ in urban areas, given the potential numbers and proximity of heritage assets, is

therefore intimately linked to considerations of townscape and urban design and of the

character and appearance of conservation areas. The character of the conservation area,

and of the surrounding area, and the cumulative impact of proposed development

adjacent, would suggest how much impact on the setting should be taken into account.

Heritage Impact Assessment

1.16 A heritage impact assessment is the process of establishing the impact of development

proposals on the significance of a place and identifying ways of mitigating any adverse

impacts.

1.17 Heritage Impact Assessments should assess the nature, extent and importance of the

significance of the heritage asset and its setting. The NPPF advises2 that the level of detail

of any assessment should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than

is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. It also

advises that as a minimum, the relevant historic environment record should be consulted

and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary.

1.18 Local planning authorities are also required to identify and assess the particular

significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by

development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available

evidence and any necessary expertise3. They should take this into account when

considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise any conflict

between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.

1.19 Paragraph 192 of the NPPF clarifies that, in determining applications, local planning

authorities should take account of:

a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and

putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;

b) the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to

sustainable communities including their economic viability; and,

c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character

and distinctiveness.

2 NPPF paragraph 189 3 NPPF paragraph 190


8

Mitigation

1.20 Mitigation constitutes action taken to reduce potential adverse impacts and damage to a

significant place. This may include avoiding damage, design solutions, options appraisal

or seeking further information.

The Historic Environment Record

1.21 Historic Environment Records provide a comprehensive resource relating to the historic

environment of a defined geographical area for public benefit and use. Typically, they

comprise databases linked to a ‘geographic information system’ (GIS) and associated

reference material. In Essex, the Historic Environment Record is maintained by Essex

County Council.

Policy Context

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

1.22 National planning policy regarding heritage assets is set out in section 16 of the NPPF,

and it describes heritage assets as being an ‘irreplaceable resource’ that should be

conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. The overarching rationale behind

this policy requirement is to ensure that heritage assets can be enjoyed for their

contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations4.

1.23 Section 16 of the NPPF sets out the national planning policy position on conserving and

enhancing the historic environment, and in respect of proposals affecting heritage assets,

paragraph 189 of the NPPF expects local planning authorities, in determining applications,

to require an applicant to:

Describe the significance of any heritage assets affected by a development

proposal; and,

Describe the contribution made by the setting of these heritage assets to their

significance.

1.24 Paragraph 190 of the NPPF places specific policy requirements on any local planning

authority making a decision on proposals which might affect a heritage asset or affect the

setting of a heritage asset. To make a planning decision, the local planning authority must

identify and assess the significance of any heritage asset and the role that its setting may

make to that significance.

1.25 When considering the impact of any proposal on the significance of a designated heritage

asset, paragraph 193 advises that ‘great weight’ should be given to the asset’s

conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater that weight should be). This

is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or

less than substantial harm to its significance.



9

1.26 Paragraph 194 is also explicit that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated

heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting),

should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to, or loss of, grade II

listed buildings, or grade II registered parks or gardens should be exceptional. Substantial

harm to, or loss of, assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments,

protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered

parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.

1.27 Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to (or total loss of

significance of), a designated heritage asset, paragraph 195 of the NPPF advises that

local planning authorities should refuse consent – unless it can be demonstrated that the

substantial harm or total loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that

outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply:

a) the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and

b) no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through

appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and

c) conservation by grant-funding or some form of not for profit, charitable or public

ownership is demonstrably not possible; and,

d) the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.

1.28 Paragraph 196 of the NPPF provides guidance for assessing development proposals that

will lead to ‘less than substantial harm’ to the significance of a designated heritage asset,

explaining that in such circumstances, this harm should be weighed against the public

benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.

1.29 Paragraph 197 of the NPPF considers the effect of an application on the significance of a

non-designated heritage asset, stating that: “in weighing applications that directly or

indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required

having regard to the scale of any harm or loss of significance of the heritage asset.”

Such considerations are also, by extension, relevant in the consideration of proposed site

allocations.

1.30 Local planning authorities are also advised that they should not permit loss of the whole

or part of a heritage asset without taking all reasonable steps to ensure the new

development will proceed after the loss has occurred5. In the context of new development

within a Conservation Area involving the demolition in whole or in part of a designated or

non-designated heritage asset, this might involve ensuring that contracts for the

construction of the new development have been signed before any demolition proceeds.



10

1.31 The NPPF also expects6 local planning authorities to look for opportunities for new

development within Conservation Areas (and World Heritage Sites), and within the setting

of heritage assets, to enhance or better reveal their significance. It notes that proposals

that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to the asset

(or which better reveal its significance) should be treated favourably.

1.32 Finally, the NPPF notes that not all elements of a Conservation Area will necessarily

contribute to its significance, and that loss of a building (or other element) which makes a

positive contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area should be treated either

as “substantial harm” (under paragraph 195), or “less than substantial harm” (under

paragraph 196), as appropriate taking into account the relative significance of the element

affected and its contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area as a whole.



11

2. SITE CONTEXT AND HERITAGE ASSETS

Introduction and Historical Background

2.1 Ongar is a civil parish in the Epping Forest District in Essex. As well as the town of

Chipping Ongar, the parish also includes the smaller nearby settlements of Greensted,

Greensted Green, Marden Ash and Shelley. The local council for the parish is Ongar Town

Council. The settlement is located approximately 11 miles west of Chelmsford and 21

miles northeast of London. It is a partially developed parish surrounded by large sections

of open land. Its main town is Chipping Ongar which has two principal historic monuments

- the Parish Church of St Martin’s and the moated Castle Mound and Town Enclosure

(‘motte and baileys’).

Figure 1: Site Location Plan (site bounded by red line)

Application site


12

2.2 Ongar is situated on one of the few patches of glacial sand in this clay area. The parish is

bounded on the east by the River Roding and on the south and west by Cripsey Brook.

The land rises sharply from 150 ft. above sea-level in the south, east, and west to more,

than 200 ft. in the centre and north. The main road from Chelmsford to Epping enters the

parish in the north-east by High Ongar Bridge and leaves it in the north-west by Ackingford

Bridge. At Wants crossroads this road is joined by the road that runs north to Shelley,

Fyfield, and the Rodings, and by the main road from Chipping Ongar to Stratford and

London. The town lies mainly along this last road, which runs south down the hill and

leaves the parish in the southwest by Ongar Bridge. Beyond the bridge the road runs up

Marden Ash Hill to Marden Ash.

2.3 The name Ongar ('grass land') indicates that this place and High Ongar were less thickly

wooded than the surrounding district. The possible use of Roman bricks in the castle

gateway and the church and the importance of Chipping Ongar in and after the 11th

century suggest that this was one of the oldest settlements in the ‘hundred’. The huge

mound which formed the centre of the castle, together with the other earthworks, probably

dates from the 11th or the 12th century. The castle stood on the spur midway between the

Roding and Cripsey Brook. To the west of it were the inner bailey and the town enclosure.

The defences of the enclosure are well preserved on the north-east and consist of a

rampart and outer ditch branching from the north end of the inner bailey.

Figure 2: Extract from Chapman and Andre Map 1777

2.4 Apart from the parish church there is no surviving building earlier than the 16th century,

although it is possible that some traces of medieval building may be obscured by later


13

alterations and additions. The White House and the Castle House are the largest houses

in the town which date from the 16th century. The other buildings of that century are

actually outside the town enclosure. Apart from the Castle House and the White House

the oldest secular buildings inside the town enclosure are the former market house and

the house next to it (now a restaurant and shops).

2.5 Other buildings in the town probably include portions dating from the 17th century, but

these are obscured by later facades. In 1671 there were 94 houses in the parish, including

the building on the castle mound. In 1758 there were 93 premises assessed for the

payment of rates. It is therefore probable that the buildings shown on the Chapman and

Andre map of 1777 (see Figure 2), covered the same area as those that had existed a

century earlier. The map shows that the built-up area extended down High Street from

the north end of the town enclosure as far as Ongar Bridge.

2.6 Between 1777 and 1841 some cottages were built to the south-west of Ongar Bridge and

further expansion of the town was accompanied by the improvement or rebuilding of some

of the older houses. Several buildings erected after 1841 are in the classical style.

2.7 There were few buildings in Ongar erected between 1875 and 1914. There are some

houses in Castle Street dating from this period, a small terrace to the south of the railway

station, and also a few houses at the south end of the High Street, and in Bushy Lees.

The buildings at the north end of High Street, which was once Great Stoney Boarding

Secondary School, were erected in 1903. It was originally a children's home of the

Hackney poor law union. The buildings were converted to private dwellings in 1998 and

are now known as Great Stony Park. In 1931 there were 206 dwelling houses in the parish.

2.8 Marden Ash was originally a village in High Ongar Parish, but is now contiguous with the

town of Chipping Ongar. The Chapman and Andre map of 1777 (see Figure 2), depicts

the village as ‘Maldon Ashes’ and illustrates the scattered nature of the settlement south

of the river. The extent of the grounds and gardens of Marden Ash House are shown on

the west side of Stanford Rivers Road, and it is also possible to make out ‘Dyers’ and its

formal gardens opposite, as well as New House Farm along Stondon Road (the road to

Stondon Massey). The only other substantial house in the village, shown on later maps as

‘Mardenash Cottage’ can be seen on the bend in the lane leading to Brentwood (now

Brentwood Road).

2.9 In 1882 Marden Ash, as it was then known, was still a distinct village settlement south of

the town, focused on the junction of Brentwood Road (A128) and Stanford Rivers Road

(A113). Some new houses had been erected along Coopers Hill leading into the village

from Chipping Ongar, just north of the junction with Brentwood Road, including ‘Landview’

(now known as Coopers House) and several cottages north of the property known as ‘Grey

End’ – a substantial house on the corner of Coopers Hill and Brentwood Road dating from

the 18th century.


14

Figure 3: Extract from Ordnance Survey 1:2,500 Series Map – 1873

2.10 The map extract above dates 1873 and illustrates the extent of the village of Marden Ash

at that time. Occupiers at that time included two beer retailers, a brewer and maltster

company, and a solicitor and clerk to the magistrates. In 1882-83 a stone and flint church

was built, with nave only and seating for 100 people. Adjoining the church was a residence

for the curate in charge. Inaugurated as the parish Church of St James, it was located in

the newly created road ‘The Chase’ (now known as St James Avenue), which ran

westwards directly opposite the junction with Brentwood Road. The church was destroyed

during the Second World War by a V-2 rocket, and was re-built in 1957 in stock bricks with

a pantile roof to the designs of Essex architect Laurence King.


15

2.11 In 1884, two High Ongar ‘JPs’ (Justices of the Peace), the parish priest and the minister

for the Congregational church lived in the village. The brewers from 1882 remained, but

as Coleclough and Palmer, based at ‘Dyers’ – a substantial house, stables and

outbuildings on the east side of Stanford Rivers Road, opposite Marden Ash House.


2.12 The map extract above dates 1920 and illustrates the extent of the village of Marden Ash

at that time. There has been very little development south of Brentwood Road, but to the

north and west, new roads include ‘The Chase’ (now known as St James Avenue), and

Cloverley Road, which ran northwards from Brentwood Road towards the Cripsey Brook

parallel with Coopers Hill. A number of pairs of semi-detached cottages have been built

along both sides of Coopers Hill, north of Landview House and Grey End, and also along

Brentwood Road, although in more scattered manner.

2.13 The principal properties south of Brentwood Road remain as: Marden Ash House; Dyers;

The Cottage; Marden Ash Cottage; The Stag public house; and Grey’s Farm.


16


2.14 The map extract above dates 1972 and illustrates the dramatic expansion of Marden Ash

in the latter half of the 20th century, which effectively linked the former village with Chipping

Ongar to the north. A number of new roads that were developed in the intervening period

include: Landview Gardens; Kettlebury Way; Woodland Way; Green Walk; Longfields;

and The Spinney. A number of detached houses and bungalows were also developed at

Sandon Place, just to the north of Dyers on the east side of Stanford Rivers Road and

south of Brentwood Road. By this time the Green Belt boundary had been established

around the south side of Marden Ash, which effectively precluded new residential

development to the south of the town.

The Development Site

2.15 The development site that has been allocated in the Submission Local Plan as a potential

housing site (Site Ref: ONG.R6), comprises a single, broadly rectangular field on the east

side of Stanford Rivers Road, directly adjacent to the settlement boundary. The draft

allocation is for approximately 33 dwellings.


17

2.16 The site was, until recently, used for grazing purposes and extends to a total area of 1.5

hectares. The aerial view of the site (see below) shows the extent of the site and the

character of the adjoining area.

Figure 6: Aerial View of Application Site (shown by red line)

2.17 The land comprising the site falls gently to the south towards the River Roding, from

around 63 metres AOD in the north-west corner of the site to around 59 metres AOD in

the south-east corner of the site. There is an established belt of trees along the site

frontage to Stanford Rivers Road.

2.18 The photographs below show the character of the immediate surroundings of the site.

View towards Marden Ash House from south View towards Site from north (Dyers on left)


18

View towards Dyers from the Site View towards Marden Ash House from the Site

Designated Heritage Assets

2.19 The map extract below shows those designated heritage assets within 500 metres of the

application site – this distance was chosen on the basis of the physical characteristics,

nature and location of this ‘edge of settlement’ site. No part of the surrounding area is

included within a designated Conservation Area. The nearest Conservation Area being in

the town of Chipping Ongar some 1km to the north of the site.

Figure 6: Designated Heritage assets within 500 metres of Application Site

1

2

3

4

5

6


19

2.20 The designated heritage assets within this 500 metre area are located along Stanford

Rivers Road, Brentwood Road and Stondon Road. They include:

1 – Marden Ash House – Grade II* listed building

2 – Dyers – Grade II listed building

3 – The Cottage - Grade II listed building

4 – Grey End - Grade II listed building

5 - Cottage on west corner of Cloverley Road (next to Grey End) - Grade II listed building

6 – Newhouse Farmhouse - Grade II* listed building.

The descriptions below are taken from the list entries for building, which were written at

the time of listing and do not include any alterations, extensions or works carried out since

that date:

1. Marden Ash House – a grade II* listed house (listed 11/04/1984). Probably built by

Nicholas Alexander late 17th Century. Altered mid-18th Century when cased in red

brick and new front added. Grey slate roof with 3 flat headed dormers. 2 storeys

with attics and basement. Parapet front stone capped, with dentilled and moulded

cornice. Central band. 3:3:3 window range of 19th Century, small paned vertical

sliding sashes. The front breaks forward to right and left. Central 6 panel door with

reveal panels, Ionic columns, moulded frieze and dentilled soffit to pediment. 2 red

brick chimney stacks with white, square chimney pots. South front of 6 bays. Interior

with a fine late 17th Century staircase and mid-18th Century detail. Late 18th Century

plaster decorated ceiling in Adam style.

2. Dyers – a Grade II listed house (listed 11/04/1984) 16th/17th Century origin, altered

in 18th Century. Timber framed and plastered with 18th Century plastered brick front.

2 storeys and attics. Double range, plain red tiled roof with 2 pedimented dormers

with small paned windows. 5 bays, two of which are recessed to right. Parapet with

fluted and moulded cornice and band under Rusticated quoins. 5 window range of

small paned vertical sliding sashes. Central 3 panel door with good fanlight and

reveal panels. Fluted Ionic pilasters modillion cornice to frieze and flat canopy.

External, part plastered, red brick chimney stacks to left and right. Interior has much

mid-18th Century detail including door heads and overmantle and a fine staircase

with enriched string

3. The Cottage – Grade II listed Lodge Cottage (listed11/04/1984) 18th/19th Century

timber framed and plastered cottage. Thatched roof, projecting eaves with timber

supports and three cut-away arches. One storey. 2 pointed head windows with

diamond lead glazing. Central plank and muntin door with matching pointed light

over. Batten decoration to walls. Red brick chimney stack.

4. Grey End – Grade II listed house, C18 or earlier with later additions and alterations.

Timber framed with setback brick extension to left, weatherboard clad central block

and brick faced with stucco to right. 2 storey and attic. Grey slate gambrel roof. 1:1:3

window range with 3 flat head dormers to attics. Small paned casements to left,

early C19 small paned vertical sliding sashes to weather-boarded range. First floor

right with 3 early Cl9 small paned casements, above which are moulded stucco


20

panels, each with swags and patera, interspersed with ornate iron tie bosses.

Moulded parapet with lion masks. Ground floor with two Gothic paned French doors

and a small paned vertical sliding sash window to right. This range with a full width,

cast iron tent porch with central round head, supported by ornate trellis supports

with frieze and panelling. The left range with matching porch but without central

head. 2 painted brick chimney stacks.

5. Cottage on west corner of Cloverly Road and next to Grey End – grade II listed

cottage. C18 or earlier. Timber framed and weather-boarded. Plain red tiled roof,

outshot at rear and to right. 2 storeys. 2 window range, mainly small paned

casements with pentice boards over. 4 board door with pentice board over and plain

door to right outshot. Central red brick chimney stack. Left return part rough

rendered, one window range of small paned vertical sliding sashes and C20 small

paned door to left.

6. Newhouse Farmhouse – a grade II* listed house. c.1600. Timber framed and rough

rendered. Red plain tiled roof with 2 feature gables and central gabled 2 storey

porch. 2 storeys and attics with full height stair turret at rear. 2 window range of

mainly original 3 or 4 light mullion windows with leaded lights. Original plank and

muntin door to porch. Various extensions incorporated at rear. Fine central 6

attached red brick octagonal chimney shafts with moulded bases and cappings.

Internally, the storey posts are jowled and the roof is of side purlin construction. The

stair turret has octagonal central newel post and original tread and riser stairs and

mullion windows. 2 first floor back to back fireplaces have original moulded and stop

chamfered plaster surrounds. One ground floor room is fully panelled with

arabesque frieze and a very fine Jacobean fireplace with arabesque and jewel

decoration. The other fireplace with foliate carved surround. There is another

panelled room with a carved frieze. Several C18 doors and original panelled doors,

also original floorboards. A fine building of its period.

2.21 Following detailed assessment of the character of the area surrounding the site, it is

considered that the designated heritage assets closest to the site whose wider setting

could be affected by the proposed development, comprise:

Marden Ash House

Dyers

The Cottage

2.22 The development of the site for housing is not likely to have any impact on the wider

setting of the designated heritage assets known as Grey End, the cottage on the corner

of Cloverley Road, and Newhouse Farmhouse. This is on the basis of their distance from

the site and the character and density of intervening residential development.

Setting of Heritage Assets

2.23 ‘Setting’ is an integral element of the significance of a heritage asset and the impact of

development proposals on the ‘setting’ of heritage assets must be considered. The ‘setting

of a heritage asset’ is defined in the glossary to the NPPF as:


21

“The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may

change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a

positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to

appreciate that significance, or may be neutral.”

2.24 Setting comprises all the surrounding context (e.g. land, landscape, skyline, structures

and important views), which is experienced from within and alongside a heritage asset.

Setting does not necessarily have a fixed spatial boundary. It includes a heritage asset’s

‘immediate’ setting as well as its ‘extended’ setting. Further advice on ‘setting’ is set out

in “The Setting of Heritage Assets”, Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in

Planning Note 3 (Second Edition), by Historic England.

2.25 The map extract below shows the location of the designated heritage assets within the

immediate vicinity of the application site (shown by coloured stars) and the ‘zone of visual

influence’ (or ‘setting’) for each building is shown by the corresponding coloured dotted

line, based on the criteria set out above. The ‘zones’ are purely indicative, based on site

inspection, but do give an indication of the wider area from which the various heritage

assets can be experienced.

2.26 From this assessment it can be seen that these ‘zones’ vary in extent and overlap one

another, largely due to the proximity of the buildings to one another. It is considered that

two of the nearest designated heritage assets have a zone of visual influence that includes

part of the application site. These are: Marden Ash House and Dyers.

2.27 The listed building closest to the application site is ‘Dyers’, which is located around 15

metres north of the site boundary. The setting of this building includes its immediate

curtilage and an area at the northern end of the application site, close to Stanford Rivers

Road. It also includes sections of Stanford Rivers Road on the approach to the property

from the north and from the south. This is because of the open nature of the adjoining field

to the south (the allocation site), and the lack of trees or substantial hedgerow along the

southern boundary of the property. It is also evident that the southern elevation of Dyers

has been designed to maximise the views from the property to the south over open

countryside. This is evident in the large bay window extending over the ground and first

floor.

2.28 The setting of Marden Ash House includes its extensive curtilage, comprising large

gardens to the north and west of the house, as well as forecourt area (including entrance

drives) to the east, and further gardens and outbuildings to the south. A dense group of

existing mature trees and landscaping screens most views of the house from the east and

south along Stanford Rivers Road. There are only very contained glimpsed views of parts

of the house (upper floors and roof) from the north-west corner of the site.

2.29 The Cottage is an attractive, modest single storey thatched cottage located on the west

side of Stanford Rivers Road, just north of the gardens to Marden Ash House. The Cottage

is seen in the context of the wider residential suburbs around the junction of Stanford

Rivers Road and Brentwood Road, rather than at the ‘rural edge’, and consequently

cannot be seen in any views from the site.


22

Figure 7: Zones of Visual Influence for Listed Buildings in vicinity of Site

2.30 While it is acknowledged that this process (setting a ‘zone of visual influence’) is, to some

extent, a subjective assessment, Figure 7 shows that the majority of the proposed

allocation site lies outside the zones of visual influence of the listed buildings in the vicinity

of the site. There are also several points to note in terms of the setting of the listed

buildings in the vicinity of the application site:

The principal elevation of Dyers faces west onto Stanford Rivers Road, the

importance of which is reflected in the list entry description. Approaching Dyers from

the south, views of the property are restricted by mature trees along the frontage of

the site, such that Dyers is not prominent in the streetscape until the bend in the

road just south of the property. Viewed from the north, Dyers is also seen against

the backdrop of mature trees along the frontage of the site (see photograph on p.17);

The setting of Marden Ash House is visually contained by existing mature trees to

the east and south, such that views of the house in the approach from the south are

very limited, and only minor glimpsed views of the upper sections of the house are

visible from the site itself;

The Cottage is located approximately 100 metres north of the site, but is set back

from the road and completely screened in views from the site to the north by existing

mature trees along the frontage of Marden Ash House, and trees along the frontage

of the site itself.

The Site


23

2.31 In the light of the above assessment, it is considered that Marden Ash House has the

widest ‘zone of visual influence’, given its extensive curtilage and location on the edge of

the built-up area, however its setting is contained by belts of mature trees along the

southern and eastern boundaries of the property. The wider setting of Dyers includes part

of the northern half of the site and it is clear that the south elevation of the house was

designed, at least in part, to maximise its south-facing aspect and views over the wider

countryside. This is further enhanced by the gap in the tree screening along the southern

boundary of the property.

2.32 No part of the allocation site, or its adjoining vicinity, falls within a designated Conservation

Area. The nearest Conservation Area to the application site is Chipping Ongar, which is

over 1km to the north.

2.33 From the above analysis it is possible to identify those specific designated heritage assets

that could be affected by the proposed development of the site for housing. These include:

Marden Ash House and its immediate and wider setting;

Dyers and its immediate and wider setting; and,

The Cottage and its wider setting.

Non- Designated Heritage Assets

2.34 While the Council has prepared a list of heritage assets of local value and interest, there

are no buildings within the vicinity of the proposed allocation site on the ‘Local List’.


24

3. ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

Introduction

3.1 This section of the report considers the ‘significance’ of the heritage assets that are likely

to be affected by the proposed development. The categories of ‘significance’ used in this

section are explained below.

3.2 The significance of the heritage assets around the proposed site require assessment in

order to provide a context for, and to determine the impact of, the development proposals

that are the subject of this proposed site allocation.

3.3 The aim of this Heritage Statement is to identify and assess any impacts that the proposed

development may cause to the value or significance of the identified heritage assets

and/or their settings. The impact on that value or significance is determined by considering

the sensitivity of the receptors identified and the magnitude of change.

3.4 The table below sets out ‘thresholds of significance’ which reflect the hierarchy for national

and local designations, based on established criteria for those designations. The Table

provides a general framework for assessing levels of significance, which may then be

judged by reference to the NPPF definition of ‘significance’ (see para. 1.8 of this report).

The NPPF and NPPG also refer to significance being of archaeological, architectural,

artistic or historic interest.

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

EXAMPLES

Very High World Heritage Sites, Listed Buildings and Scheduled Monuments

of exceptional quality, or assets of acknowledged international

importance or can contribute to international research objectives.

Grade I, Grade II* and Grade II Registered Parks and Gardens and

historic landscapes and townscapes of international sensitivity.

High Grade I, Grade II* and Grade II Listed Buildings and built heritage of

exceptional quality.

Grade I, Grade II* and Grade II Registered Parks and Gardens and

historic landscapes and townscapes which are extremely well

preserved with exceptional coherence, integrity, time-depth, or other

critical factor(s).

Medium Scheduled Monuments, or assets of national quality and

importance, or that can contribute to national research objectives.

Grade II* and Grade II Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas with

very strong character and integrity, other built heritage that can be

shown to have exceptional qualities in their fabric or historical

association.


25

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

EXAMPLES

Grade II* and II Registered Parks and Gardens, Registered

Battlefields and historic landscapes and townscapes of outstanding

interest, quality and importance, or well preserved and exhibiting

considerable coherence, integrity time-depth or other critical

factor(s).

Moderate Grade II Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, locally listed

buildings and undesignated assets that can be shown to have good

qualities in their fabric or historical association.

Grade II Registered Parks and Gardens, Registered Battlefields,

undesignated special historic landscapes and townscapes with

reasonable coherence, integrity, time-depth or other critical

factor(s).

Low Assets compromised by poor preservation and/or poor survival of

contextual associations but with potential to contribute to local

research objectives.

Historic buildings or structures of modest quality in their fabric or

historical association. Locally-listed buildings and undesignated

assets of moderate/low quality.

Historic landscapes and townscapes with limited sensitivity or

whose sensitivity is limited by poor preservation, historic integrity

and/or poor survival of contextual associations.

Negligible/none Assets with no surviving cultural heritage interest. Buildings of no

architectural or historical note.

Landscapes and townscapes with no surviving legibility and/or

contextual associations, or with no historic interest.

3.5 Listing entries can be helpful in assessing the detailed significance of a designated

heritage asset, as they may provide details of the archaeological, architectural, artistic or

historic interest of such assets, although it should be noted that these are not exhaustive

or complete details.

3.6 Historic England’s Conservation Principles document considers the contribution made by

setting and context to the significance of a heritage asset.

“‘Setting’ is an established concept that related to the surroundings in which a place

is experienced, its local context, embracing present and past relationships to the

adjacent landscape.”

“‘Context’ embraces any relationship between a place and other places. It can be,

for example, cultural, intellectual, spatial or functional, so any one place can have a


26

multi-layered context. The range of contextual relationships of a place will normally

emerge from an understanding of its origins and evolution. Understanding context

is particularly relevant to assessing whether a place has greater value for being part

of a larger entity, or sharing characteristics with other places.”

3.7 In order to understand the role of setting and context to decision-making, it is important to

have an understanding of the origins and evolution of an asset, to the extent that this

understanding gives rise to significance in the present. Assessment of these values is not

based solely on visual considerations, but may lie in a deeper understanding of historic

use, ownership, change or other cultural influence – all or any of which may have given

rise to current circumstances and may hold a greater or lesser extent of significance.

3.8 Once the value and significance of an asset has been assessed, the next stage is to

determine the ‘magnitude’ of the impact brought about by the development proposals.

This impact could be a direct physical impact on the assets itself or an impact on its wider

setting, or both. Impact on setting is measured in terms of the effect that the impact has

on the significance of the asset itself – rather than setting being considered as the asset

itself.

3.9 The table below sets out the levels of impact that may occur and to what degree their

impacts may be considered to be adverse or beneficial in effect.

Magnitude of

Impact

Typical Criteria Descriptors

Very High Adverse: Impacts will destroy cultural heritage assets resulting in their

total loss or almost complete destruction.

Beneficial: The proposals would remove or successfully mitigate

existing and significant damaging and discordant impacts on assets;

allow for the substantial restoration or enhancement of characteristic

features.

High Adverse: Impacts will damage cultural heritage assets; result in the loss

of the asset’s quality are integrity; cause severe damage to key

characteristic features or elements; almost complete loss of setting

and/or context of the asset. The assets integrity or setting is almost

wholly destroyed or is severely compromised, such that the resource

can no longer be appreciated or understood.

Beneficial: The proposals would remove or successfully mitigate

existing damaging and discordant impacts on assets; allow for the

restoration or enhancement of characteristic features; allow the

substantial re-establishment of the integrity, understanding and setting

for an area or group of features; halt rapid degradation and/or erosion of

the heritage resource, safeguarding substantial elements of the heritage

resource.

Medium Adverse: Moderate impact on the asset, but only partially affecting the

integrity; partial loss of, or damage to, key characteristics, features or

elements; substantially intrusive into the setting and/or would adversely


27

Magnitude of

Impact

Typical Criteria Descriptors

impact upon the context of the asset; loss of the asset for community

appreciation. The assets integrity or setting is damaged but not

destroyed so understanding and appreciation is compromised.

Beneficial: Benefit to, or partial restoration of, key characteristics,

features or elements; improvement of asset quality; degradation of the

asset would be halted; the setting and/or context of the asset would be

enhanced and understanding and appreciation is substantially

improved; the asset would be bought into community use.

Minor/Low Adverse: Some measurable change in assets quality or vulnerability;

minor loss of or alteration to, one (or maybe more) key characteristics,

features or elements; change to the setting would not be overly intrusive

or overly diminish the context; community use or understanding would

be reduced. The assets integrity or setting is damaged but

understanding and appreciation would only be diminished not

compromised.

Beneficial: Minor benefit to, or partial restoration of, one (maybe more)

key characteristics, features or elements; some beneficial impact on

asset or a stabilisation of negative impacts; slight improvements to the

context or setting of the site; community use or understanding and

appreciation would be enhanced.

Negligible Barely discernible change in baseline conditions

Nil No discernible change in baseline conditions.

Designated Heritage Assets

3.10 Marden Ash House – is a substantial Grade II* listed house dating from the late 17th

Century. It has a good interior that retains a number of original features, including a fine

late 17th Century staircase and late 18th Century plaster decorated ceiling in the ‘Adam’

style. The House is a particularly important building of ‘more than special interest’.

3.11 For the above reasons, Marden Ash House should be considered to be of ‘high’

significance as a designated heritage asset.

3.12 Dyers – is a Grade II listed house of 16th/17th Century origin, and altered in the 18th

Century. The house displays original features from each of these periods and can be

considered to be a building of special interest.

3.13 For the above reasons, Dyers should be considered to be of ‘medium’ significance

as a designated heritage asset.

3.14 The Cottage – is a Grade II listed Lodge Cottage dating from the 18th/19th Century. The

Cottage is actually of ‘pise’ construction (rammed clay walls) and plastered externally. The

roof of the Cottage was destroyed in a fire in the late 1990s and subsequently re-built


28

using long-straw thatch and timber frame. The Cottage is a rare survivor of a type of

cottage once common in this part of Essex and can be considered to be a building of

special interest.

3.15 For the above reasons, the Cottage should be considered to be of ‘medium’

significance as a designated heritage asset.

Summary of Significance

Asset Designation Archaeological

Interest

Architectural

Interest

Historic

Interest

Artistic

Interest

Overall

Significance

Contribution

of Setting

Marden

Ash

House

Grade II*

Listed

Building

Medium

High

High

High

High

High

Dyers

Grade II

Listed

Building

Medium

Medium

Medium

Medium

Medium

Medium

The

Cottage

Grade II

Listed

Building

Moderate

Medium

Medium

Moderate

Medium

Moderate


29

4 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT

Location and Setting of Potential Development

4.1 The proposed allocation site is located at Marden Ash, which now forms part of the parish

of Ongar, to the south of the market town of Chipping Ongar. The site is broadly

rectangular in extent and has a frontage onto Stanford Rivers Road extending to around

42 metres. The land falls gently southwards to the northern shallow valley edge of the

River Roding. Grays Farm is located to the south of the site, although the farmhouse and

its outbuildings are now solely in residential use.

4.2 Stanford Rivers Road (A113) runs south-west from the town to Stanford Rivers (Little End)

and Stapleford Tawney, and then onto Abridge via Passingford Bridge. Approaching the

town from the south, the frontage of the site is lined with a number of mature trees, which

filter views into the site. Marden Ash House, a grade II* listed building, is located to the

north-west of the site on the opposite side of Stanford Rivers Road. The property known

as Dyers is located immediately to the north of the site. Taken together, these two

properties mark the entrance into the town from the south.

4.3 A single point of access is proposed into the site from Stanford Rivers Road, just to the

north of centre of the site frontage. At this point, the new access would be located on the

outside of the bend in the main road allowing the required vehicle to vehicle visibility splays

to be provided. The majority of mature trees along the site frontage would be capable of

being retained with the access in this location.

The Form and Appearance of the Development

4.4 At this stage, the detailed design of the proposed new dwellings has yet to be provided,

but it is envisaged that the development would comprise a mix of detached and semi-

detached houses, as well as a discrete building containing six apartments. A relatively low

density of around 25 dwellings per hectare is suggested, reflecting the ‘edge of settlement’

location of the site. The houses would have generous gardens and off-street parking

would be provided in the form of garages, car-ports and driveway parking areas.

Impact of the Proposed Development

4.5 In order to assess the suitability of the site for residential development, it is necessary to

determine the nature and extent of any impacts resulting from the proposals on the

significance of the identified heritage assets and their settings.

4.6 When assessing the impact of a proposed development on individual or groups of heritage

assets, it is important to assess both the potential, direct physical impacts of the

development scheme as well as the potential impacts on their settings and where effects

on setting would result in harm to the significance of the asset. It is equally important to

identify benefits to settings, where they result directly from the proposals.

4.7 The proposed development is considered below in terms of its potential impact on the

significance of the heritage assets, and the contribution which setting makes to their


30

significance. Assessment of impact levels are made with reference to the table on pages

26 and 27 of this report.

4.8 Due to the physical separation between the site and the nearby heritage assets, there will

be no direct physical impact on them as a result of the proposed scheme.

4.9 Impacts arising will relate solely to potential effects on the immediate and extended

settings of the heritage assets and the impact this may have on their significance.

4.10 The closest designated heritage assets (listed buildings) to the site have been established

as being: Marden Ash House; Dyers; and The Cottage - (list descriptions used). There are

no, non-designated heritage assets within, or in the immediate vicinity of the application

site.

4.11 The listed building described as Marden Ash House is located within an expansive setting

to the north-west of the proposed allocation site, and is set back from the road by around

32 metres behind a line of mature trees. The house is grade II* listed and has a good

interior that retains a number of original features. It is a particularly important building of

‘more than special interest’, consequently, its overall significance is rated as ‘high’.

4.12 The immediate context of the house is that of a large, detached ‘Georgian’ style dwelling

set within extensive grounds, including gardens to the west and north, and outbuildings

(now converted to separate dwellings), to the south-west. The boundaries to the property

are strongly defined by belts of mature trees, particularly to the frontage of the property

along Stanford Rivers Road, which largely screen the house in almost all views from the

south and east. Glimpsed views of the upper floors of the house can be obtained through

the trees from Stanford Rovers Road, but these are very limited. Other glimpsed views of

the house can be obtained along the entrance drive from the gates to the north-east of

the house. There are no significant views of the principal elevations of the house when

approaching from the south, however, overall the contribution that the setting of the house

makes to its significance, must still be considered to be ‘high’.

4.13 The impact of the proposed site allocation for residential development on the setting of

Marden Ash House would be limited to the alterations to this part of Stanford Rivers Road

to create the new access road into the site, and consequent loss of some of the existing

trees along the site frontage, and the change in overall character of the site from open

field to residential suburb. However, it should be acknowledged that the closest new

houses to Marden Ash House would be at least 75 metres away on the opposite side of

Stanford Rivers Road, and that a wide area of open space (containing swales) would

extend across the frontage of the site with the majority of existing mature trees along the

frontage being retained.

4.14 Dyers is also a substantial detached house, albeit set within a more modest curtilage than

Marden Ash House, on the east side of Stanford Rivers Road, immediately to the north of

the allocation site. The illustrative layout suggests the nearest new houses would be

around 20 metres from this listed building to the south-west. However, that part of the site

immediately south of Dyers would be kept open to retain views of the south elevation of


31

the house from the new access road into the site. In addition, the existing mature trees

along the site frontage in the vicinity of Dyers would be retained.

4.15 The impact of the proposed site allocation for residential development on the setting of

Dyers would relate to the change in character of the wider setting of the house to the

south. However, the retention of existing mature trees along the site frontage and the

creation of a substantial area of open space between any of the proposed dwellings and

the frontage of the site, particularly in the vicinity of Dyers, will ensure that this impact will

be minimised.

4.16 The Cottage is located some distance from the proposed allocation site, therefore any

impact on the extended setting of this listed building will be negligible. Views looking

southwards down Stanford Rivers Road from the immediate setting of the Cottage would

not change significantly, although it is accepted that the new access road into the site

would be partially visible in this view corridor.

Summary of Impact

Asset Designation Overall

Significance

Physical Impact Impact on

Setting

Marden Ash

House

Grade II* Listed

Building

High

None

Minor/low

adverse

Dyers

Grade II Listed

Building

Medium

None

Minor/low to

medium

adverse

The Cottage

Grade II Listed

Building

Medium

None

Negligible

Conclusions

4.17 In the context of the above identified levels of impact to the immediate and extended

settings of the listed buildings above, it is noted that this modest level of impact should be

weighed against the public benefits to be delivered by the proposed scheme, in

accordance with paragraph 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). In

the case of the preparation of a Local Plan, these public benefits are considered as part

of the plan-making process. In this instance, the Council’s site assessment work has

considered such benefits and concluded that the site merits allocation.

4.18 In addition, since the detailed design and layout of this proposed development has yet to

be decided, it is likely that these impacts could be considered to be at least partly beneficial

in respect of Dyers, in that an attractive, new area of public open space could be provided


32

immediately to the south of Dyers, which would allow ‘new’ views of the south elevation

of this important listed building, thus understanding and appreciation of the building would

be enhanced.


33

5 MITIGATION

5.1 The impact of the proposed development on the immediate and wider settings of the

identified designated heritage assets could be mitigated through the application of the

following measures:

Sensitive, traditional design and layout of the proposed new buildings and external

spaces that respects the wider context of the site and the contextual relationship

with the nearby designated heritage assets and their settings;

Inclusion of a substantial area of public open space across the frontage of the site,

which will help to preserve the immediate and wider settings of the identified

designated heritage assets that adjoin the site;

Use of high quality, traditional external materials and detailing, particularly for those

new buildings in the vicinity of the closest designated heritage asset;

Retention of existing mature trees where possible along the frontage of the site to

Stanford Rivers Road, to maintain an appropriate semi-rural setting for the proposed

development at this edge of settlement location; and,

Careful design, detailing and use of high-quality external materials in the provision

of the new footways and carriageway margins along the new entrance road into the

site from Stanford Rivers Road.

5.2 The proposed combination of mitigation measures set out above will ensure that the

identified levels of impact to the settings of the designated heritage assets would be

minimal, thereby ensuring that their immediate settings are conserved and strengthened

and the historic group preserved if not reinforced in character. Any harm to the significance

of the identified heritage assets will therefore be minimised.


34

6 CONCLUSIONS

6.1 This assessment has been prepared by Strutt and Parker on behalf of on behalf of

Stonebond Properties Ltd to support a proposed allocation for residential development on

land east of Stanford Rivers Road in Ongar, Essex.

6.2 The assessment has examined the likely impact of the proposed development on the

significance of the designated heritage assets within the immediate vicinity of the site, as

well as any impact on their setting. The assessment also highlights the significance of the

designated heritage assets within the wider area of the site, and describes the contribution

made by their extended setting.

6.3 The impact of the proposed development on these designated heritage assets and their

setting has also been evaluated and the proposed mitigation measures that would be

incorporated into the overall design of the new development have been explained, in terms

of how they will ensure that any harm to the significance of the identified heritage assets

will be minimised.

6.4 The potentially affected listed buildings acquire their ‘special’ interest primarily from their

architectural characteristics, specifically their form, layout and traditional materials. The

contribution made by their setting is limited and localised, and the proposals will preserve

immediate setting intact. Therefore, overall significance will remain intact and no direct

harm is perceived to these heritage assets. There are also resultant public benefits that

would flow from any residential development, including the provision of both affordable

and market housing in a situation where the Council cannot currently demonstrate an

adequate supply of housing land.

6.5 As a result of our assessments on site, it is considered that the proposed development

would result in impacts ranging from negligible impact to medium impact to the setting

of designated heritage assets, on the basis that the change to those settings would not

be overly intrusive or overly diminish their context.

6.6 There would likely to be only negligible impact from the proposed development on the

contribution that the extended setting makes to the significance of The Cottage, Stanford

Rivers Road, Ongar.

6.7 There would likely to be a minor/low adverse impact on the extended setting of the

Marden Ash House as a result of the development of the proposed allocation site. This

impact could be mitigated through the inclusion of an area of landscaped public open

space along the frontage of the site, and the retention of existing mature trees, which

would help to preserve the wider setting of this listed building.

6.8 There would be a minor/low to medium adverse (but potentially partially beneficial)

impact on the setting of Dyers, as a result of the development of the proposed allocation

site – specifically the change in character from open field to housing development.

However, the siting, layout and design of the proposals, as well as the mitigation measures

proposed, would seek to achieve a development that will minimise this impact. The

incorporation of an area of open space along the frontage to the site could also allow ‘new’


35

views of the south elevation of this important listed building, thereby enhancing

understanding and appreciation of the building.

6.9 The aspect of medium and minor/low adverse impact are considered, in this case, to

represent “less than substantial” harm in the context of Paragraph 196 of the NPPF, a

term which (according to Bedford Borough Council v SSCLG & Nuon UK Ltd [2013] EWHC

2847) can refer to a range of impacts from an impact that is “negligible” in effect, to one

which is “something approaching demolition or destruction.” In these instances, we

consider that the “less than substantial” harm levels are towards the lower end of this

scale and would not incur impacts of such an effect as to infer substantial losses of

significance.

6.10 At the level of “less than substantial harm”, the impacts arising from this development

should be considered in the context of public benefits arising from the proposals, in

accordance with Paragraph 196 of the NPPF. In applying the unweighted balance of harm

and benefit, the decision-maker should satisfy themselves that considerable importance

and weight has been placed on the Statutory duty contained with Section 16(2) of the

1990 Act.

6.11 Finally, it can be concluded that with careful consideration of the details regarding layout,

scale and design during the detailed design stage, the development of this site in the

illustrative manner proposed could be achieved without having a materially harmful effect

upon the significance or setting of the designated heritage assets, which would be in

compliance with relevant national and Local Plan policies.


36

Appendix A

HER Records – within 500m of appeal site

Listed Buildings

Essex County Council HER Records


Appendix C

Name: Planning Policy

Scale: 1: 3,000 @A4

Contains Ordnance Survey & Royal Mail Data© Crown Copyright & Database Right 2016EFDC Licence No: 100018534 2016© Royal Mail Copyright & Database Right 2016© Environment Agency, © CopyrightGeo Perspectives, © Natural England 2016Reproduced with the permission of Natural England

Date: 10/06/2019LegendProject: HW 27 - Heritage

ContentCHIG.R7

CHIG.R7

THURLBY HOUSE

FORECOURT PIERS,GATEWAY AND RAILINGSTO NORTH WEST OFCHIGWELL MANOR HOUSE

CHIGWELL MANORHOUSE (CONVENT OFTHE SACRED HEART)

Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GISUser Community

Residential Allocation

Epping Forest District Green Belt

Epping Forest District Boundary

Locally Listed Buildings

Grade II Listed Buildings

Grade II* Listed Buildings

Grade I Listed Buildings

Listed Buildings

Documents

EPPING FOREST DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN EXAMINATION … › wp-content › uploads › 2019 › 06 › ... · is located within the settings of Grade II Listed Dyers and Grade II* Marden